Abstract:
This thesis is concerned with the challenges and benefits of collective living, and explores how this lifestyle is expressed and facilitated through architecture. It has developed from an interest in the concept of spatial consumerism, and offers a critique on the spatial practices encouraged by individualist society. The individualist mentality that drives consumer culture is not limited to the acquisition of physical, material goods; there is also a preoccupation in modern society with the ownership, privatisation, and essentially the consumption of space. The possibility for more collective lifestyles warrants continued discussion; indeed, whether and how to compromise our current lifestyles is one of the key questions facing society. The objective has been to investigate the concepts and social ideals that underpin the rejection of consumer culture, to minimise the private consumption of space, and to explore the possibilities for more cooperative living. The discussion ranges from the radical socialist ideals propagated by the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 30s and embodied in the dom kommuna, through modernist socialism and the utopian expression of social organisation in the megastructures of the mid-century, to the community-focused settlements and neighbourhoods of the latter decades of the 20th century. It is acknowledged that collective living is not without its significant challenges. The majority of the works cited are purely theoretical, and enjoyed only a brief period of popularity, and a number of those that were built ultimately met with failure, some only lasting a few years. Accepting the pre-eminence of individualist cultural values is a vital step and, therefore, a key question must be: can collective living accommodate individuality? Do collective solutions invariably present a case of top-down planning that imposes strict rules on individuals, or can they also be built up from individual choices to live in a more cooperative way with others? This study addresses these questions and their particular relationship to the practice of architecture.